Lately there have been a tiny handful of readers who seem to have adopted the idea that NTZ is a personal forum they can simply take over. From now on this is no longer the case.
If you have point to make, then make it. There really is no need for anyone to feel he/she is always right and needs to have the last word on every single point.
The purpose of this blog is to show that the science is nowhere near as settled as it is claimed to be, and that the lofty promises made by green energies are not what they are cracked up to be by any measure. The many reports and lists of peer-reviewed publications presented here clearly support that. If you have a hard time with that reality, then I’m very sorry; I can’t help you.
In a true democratic and open society people have the right to dissent without others barging in — like a William Connelly or Dana Nuccitelli — and obstinately demanding the climate science is settled and that we all have to fall into line. Long comment strings will be discarded in the future.
If you really do have so much good stuff to say, then start your own blog. If you’re as good as you think you are, it may well be a smashing success!
We welcome different opinions here, but leave the uncompromising insistence and the need to dominate out. Make your point and move on.
From now on don’t think this is a mike on a podium that you just can grab any time you want, sound off, and expect everyone to nod in agreement.
I think most adults know what proper manners regarding dialogue are, and so there should be no need to put up playground rules on this.
Thanks
-PG
Well said Pierre.
It has been like watching someone play bridge who knows only how to barrage bid.
no logic , no useful dialogue and no finesse
Bravo.
Hear, hear! I’m with Eternal Optimist on this.
You are far more patient than I, Pierre.
But, in defense of this old guy, a lifetime quotient of tolerance to thread noise in the final analysis produced a blunt intolerance to the same. In my case, I simply shut the comments off. The peace that followed was well worth it, and my conscience didn’t die as was expected by the crickets.
-the old man
https://notonmywatch.com
Since you made clear this is (in part) about my behavior …
Maybe you are right, I shouldn’t answer every ridiculous provocation by master deniers in the comment section. However, I hope you still allow comments that point out what’s not true, what’s questionable at best or where other opinions exist in allmost all of the articles posted on this blog.
Or do you prefer this in a notrickzone-watchblog format?
Here I agree with you. Of course no one is going to change anyone’s mind by engaging in a game of tit for tat. And believe me, I’ve edited and deleted quite a number of churlish comments from the skeptic side of the argument.
“ridiculous provocation by master deniers in the comment section”
I hope Pierre is not going to let that comment highly provocative rest.
We all know where the provocation is coming from.
We all know who cannot support the very basis of AGW.
oops , pre coffee post.. my first line should read….
I hope Pierre is not going to let that highly provocative comment rest.
Seb is almost certainly referring to Kenneth, who has blasted seb out of the park at every point, while seb is batting zero on basically every point.
How is seb allowed to get away with that sort of insult, calling Kenneth a “master denier” ???
I am talking about you.
But I am not a denier of science.
You and sob are the only deniers of science that frequent this blog.
You can’t even support the very basis of your own baseless AGW religion.
Then, given a chance to be reasonable, you immediately start with the denier sliming, in your very second sentence.
This is classic AGW far-left totalitarian troll behaviour, accuse others of what YOU are doing !
The ONLY reason you are here is as a SHILL for the unsupportable, anti-science, anti-humanity AGW agenda.
Come on seb, what do I deny, that you can actually prove?
REAL science shows that CO2 DOES NOT cause warming in a convective atmosphere, because the atmosphere is controlled by the gravity induced pressure/temperature effect.
I challenge you to prove me wrong, by producing one single paper that proves, by measurement, that CO2 cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
And NO, radiative measurement do NOT mean warming, because CONVECTION RULES in the lower atmosphere.
We are all waiting.
The Feldman paper showed that an El Nino change in temperature caused a very tiny increase in atmospheric radiation, (after data was tortured for 5 years), as a NATURAL warming event of the atmosphere might actually do.
So.. WAITING, WAITING.
The surface receives an amount X W/m² of solar radiation on average, but the surface has a higher temperature than those X W/m² would cause.
So something else is also causing surface warming, correct?
Convection and Evaporation cool the surface obviously. Is it pressure? Is there work being done to cause the pressure (meaning: is there a compressor running somehwere)? No. Could it be radiation that has been measured lots of times? Yes.
Where does the radiation come from? Clouds, water vapor, methane and CO2.
Why do we know that? Because we have spectrometers.
How could convection be able to defeat this mechanism? Lets assume you are right for a moment. Instead of the surface warming to get rid of excess energy by radiation, it’s only convection that increases. What would be the result? Air parcels with more energy will reach greater heights. The height where radiation becomes dominant increases and the temperature gradient from your gravito/thermal theory also starts from a greater height … and wouldn’t that cause a higher surface temperature?
I will read your reply, but I will not reply to it as per the new rule to prevent pointless back-and-forth discussion that go nowhere.
SebastianH:
I doubt you really are interested in learning about the gravito-thermal (non-CO2) explanation for planetary temperatures, as you’d prefer to continue to dismiss contrary evidence, but here is an overview of the conceptualization, along with 36 other papers/publications (listed at the bottom) that affirm this theoretical framework. You’ve asked AndyG to supply a paper that supports his “denier” position about the inconsequence of the CO2 greenhouse effect relative to the gravito-thermal explanation…and here are several.
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/08/new-paper-confirms-gravito-thermal.html
“New paper confirms the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on 6 planets including Earth, falsifies CAGW”
And here’s another one from last year, making 38 papers/publications:
https://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2016/06/new-paper-demonstrates-gravito-thermal.html
“New paper demonstrates the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on Jupiter is due to pressure, not greenhouse gases”
You’ve been asked, SebastianH, to supply one paper that provides physical evidence that CO2 causes the oceans to warm or cool when raised up or down in volumes of 0.000001. (I don’t bother saying “in a convective atmosphere” like AndyG does because even the IPCC acknowledges that only 1% of the net heat change from “global warming” is manifested in the atmosphere, and the heat exchange is almost exclusively ocean-to-air, not the other way around.) And yet each time you are asked to provide evidence, you cannot. What does this say about the tenuousness of your position if you cannot support what you believe with scientific evidence? I am asking you this as one human being to another. Not being snarky (as I can sometimes be). Does it bother you at all that you have no physical evidence/scientific experiment/observational measurements to back up your claims?
Anyone can talk, but backing it up with literature, data etc. is another thing.
Seb, still only able to yap.
NO PAPER to prove the very basis of AGW.
Provide one or just GO AWAY.
Have to say, seb, I thinks its hilarious the way your base-level mis-understanding of the atmosphere allows you to imagine so many things that are not just WRONG, but go deep into the fantasy realm.
Maybe you should change your life to being a comic book writer… because you sure are a failure as an AGW apostle/shill. !
Poor seb seems to be under a misguided assumption that energy is somehow created out of nowhere.
Quite bizarre.
Maybe another read of this article from a guy that works with CO2 lasers for a living will allow you to gain the basic knowledge to comprehend…. (but only if you remove the AGW cult brain-block)
http://lasersparkpluginc.com/uploads/CO2_Absorption_Data.pdf
Kenneth, I’ve read all the gravito/thermal papers AndyG55 linked to (same as in your reply). The authors (with their backwards spelled names) have it backwards and mistake the effect for the cause.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6859.pdf
It’s like seeing a car crash and then claim that the car’s speed before the crash was caused by the observed energy release in the crash.
Regarding evidence or literature … we had this conversation so many times and it leads to nowhere. You seem to think that a measured radiation has no effect and you do not understand how radiative energy transfer works (the sentence “and the heat exchange is almost exclusively ocean-to-air, not the other way around” kind of proves that). From the who-causes-the-CO2-level-increase discussion it looks like even math is sometimes a problem. Your skill is to find papers and pick the relevant (to your worldview) quote.
This explains how to “measure” the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
The author indeed mentions models, but I hope you understand what these models are used for in this context. It boils down to measuring radiation, determining how much of this radiation can be attributed to what greenhouse gas and then calculate the effect. That doesn’t mean that the effect itself is being calculated …
I’ve never written that “measured radiation has no effect.” You have, once again, dishonestly made up a straw man argument. And then you proceed to your patented irrelevant analogy about car crashes.
It is impossible to carry on a conversation/debate with you.
Should have written calculate the amount of the effect. Sorry for the confusion.
To do any calculations that actually mean something other than producing hypothetical values, you’re going to first have to scientifically demonstrate that raising or lowering CO2 in volumes of 0.000001 heat or cool bodies of water, and provide the physical measurements from the scientific experiment. I keep pointing this out to you, and you continue to pretend that observational evidence and physical measurements aren’t necessary. Hypothetical models are enough. That’s why you are having so much trouble here. Your beliefs are based on hypotheticals and assumptions.
And again the back-handed insult from seb, who seems to have spent most of his education years in a fantasy world.
Quite pathetic that he cannot support the very basis of his AGW religion with even one paper, and does not have the scientific background to comprehend the gravito/thermal papers.
Odd, I though seb said he wasn’t going to keep peddling is AGW shill propaganda and anti-science mis-information.
Seems he is a liar as well as being a nil-informed troll.
And you really should read things you post, else you continue to make a fool of yourself.
“Here we use a physically-based model to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows shortwave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue.”
WOW, it seems that CONVECTION RULES in the lower atmosphere. And radiative cooling ensues above 0.1 bar.. Just like we have been showing you.
Who woulda known !!! 😉
This is growing to another endless loop …
Kenneth,
do you demand physical measurements for everything? The temperature of the sun? Nobody has been there with a thermometer. Gravity in a location where nobody has been yet? Does it really exist if nobody measured it there yet?
Your questions make it very clear that you have no understanding of radiative energy transfers. The only possibility radiation is not affecting a surface is if it is completely transparent or completely reflects the radiation. Has water or the oceans one or both of those properties?
It’s not hypothetical. Maybe it’s a believe, the believe in physical laws and constants working everywhere. Your believe seems to be that they don’t until proven in every circumstance.
SebastianH:
Here’s an example of the physical measurements I am asking for as they pertain to the subject at hand:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Edson/publication/215721709_Cool-skin_and_warm-layer_effects_on_sea_surface_temperature_J_Geophys_Res/links/0c96051af2eab81df4000000.pdf
“On a clear day the Sun deposits an average of about 500 W/m-2 of heat into the ocean over the 12 daylight hours. Roughly half of this heat is absorbed in the upper 2 m. In the absence of mixing this is sufficient heat input to warm this 2-m-deep layer uniformly by 2.0 K. … Measurable warming occurs as deep as 20 m and may persist well past sundown.”
—
ftp://mana.soest.hawaii.edu/pub/rlukas/OCN-MET665/fluxes/radiative/Ohlmann%20etal%20Part%20II%202000%20JPO.pdf
“Results from radiative transfer calculations indicate that in-water solar fluxes can vary by 40 W/m-2 within the upper few meters of the ocean (based on a climatological surface irradiance of 200 W/m-2) and that a significant portion of the variation can be explained by upper ocean chlorophyll concentration, solar zenith angle, and cloud amount (OSM).”
—
http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/~davey/MyPapers/Siegel_etal_JGR1995_COARE.pdf
Introduction: Solar radiation is the dominant heat source for the ocean. … [T]he penetration of solar radiation through the [Pacific warm water pool] mixed is large and is an important component of the [Pacific warm water pool] heat budget. The cruise observations indicate that 9.8% of the incident solar radiation penetrates to a depth of 30 m (the mean mixed depth for the [Pacific warm water pool]) . This corresponds to a climatological mean in situ penetrative flux at 30 m of 22.5 W m-2 using a recent solar flux climatology calclulated using the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project C1 data set (Table 1). This penetrating flux is more than one half the climatological mean air-sea heat flux for the [Pacific warm water pool] (~40 W m-2).
Your un-earned patronizing and condescension is extremely offensive. Why do you think it is that CO2 is not mentioned when scientists discuss radiative energy transfers for the ocean?
—
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0041:OOTIRP>2.0.CO;2
Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean
“[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space.The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 not mentioned as a factor affecting transmittance, or anywhere in the paper.]
—
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstract
The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. Maps of the long-term monthly and annual means of the net surface energy flux together with the four components of the total flux (latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation) for the global oceans are presented. Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux. [CO2 not mentioned as a parameter in determining surface flux, or anywhere in the paper.]
You can break that loop by providing one paper that proves CO2 warms water, or CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
I say END the loop until you can provide such a paper.
Don’t post again on this forum until you can do that… I dare you. !!
But we all know you will just keep up your meaningless anti-science yapping.
It would not end … I tried that already, remember? Every paper I post is immediately called anti-science or blamed for using AGW-physics. So why bother?
Here is a quick overview of papers about the radiation budget:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/papers-on-earths-radiation-budget/
About changes in DLR:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
CO2 temperature correlation:
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/papers-on-co2-temperature-correlation/
Their list of papers is very similar to what Kenneth is compiling here … except it tells a very different story. Feel free to browse, maybe you’ll learn something, but most likely you’ll ignore it as AGW-nonsense.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/
Exactly none of these papers provide experimental scientific evidence, with physical measurements, that CO2 causes warming or cooling when raised or lowered by 0.000001 over a body of water. You know that. And yet you continue to pretend that’s not what’s being asked for, that modeled assumptions and hypothesis about what might be true are sufficient. Another gross failure to support your position, SebastianH. That pattern was established long ago. So why are you here?
Not one of those papers shows by measurement that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
A whole mass of assumption driven models.
The closest is the Feldman which found that a major El Nino caused a tiny amount of change extracted from the data after 5 years of work, and not checked for the 2000-2008 period.
Your idea of empirical proof is totally BIZARRE.
You are still batting ZERO. !!
The correlation ones are the funniest. They are undoubtedly correlating to a temperature series (NOAA/GISS) which has “adjustments” that have an R² of 0.99 with CO2 levels. ie specifically adjusted to match the CO2 rise.
Very funny stuff.
Standard practice from a person losing his way, is to dump a whole heap of papers that don’t show what is being asked for.
One paper, that we can discuss, not a whole heap of modelled GIGO !
Choose one you think fills the massive great hole in your AGW religion.
“Another gross failure to support your position, SebastianH. That pattern was established long ago. So why are you here?”
I can only assume he is here to prove just how inadequate the scientific proof behind the AGW scam really is.
That is certainly all he has accomplished so far.
He does an immeasurable amount of damage to the AGW cause by continually helping us point out just how WOEFUL the science behind the AGW scam really is.
Thank you seb. 🙂
Your blog Pierre, your rules. Over the years I have developed an ability to just bypass the reiterations but it is a pain and distracts from developing any forward thinking.
Thanks for your endeavours.
Many thanks, Pierre – from a long-term reader who has noticed that trend but appreciates relevant and succinct responses.
Do you know Spike Milligna – the well-known typing error?
I truly enjoy this blog and have great respect for the many clever, objective authors who bring open minds and a full understanding of scientific process to the debate. The restrictions you propose make perfect sense. They willl elevate the discussion and reduce distracting dogmatism and unfocused argument.
Well said Pierre,
All too often these so called arguments reduce to scripted shouting matches where neither side actually read or appreciate what the other is saying. A sort of “my data/theory is better than yours” playground. Usually by that point I have left as there is little to be gained from such antics, though some days it is fun to watch.
Climate science certainly is not a fix target, it IS work in progress, as Dr. Tim Ball says —
“Climate science is the work of specialists working on one small part of climatology. It’s a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees. Some think computer modelers are generalists. They are specialists trying to be generalists who don’t know the interrelationships, interactions, and feedbacks in the general picture. “
From Dr. Tim Ball’s blog at http://drtimball.com/2017/climate-science-and-climatology-specialization-and-generalization-forest-and-trees/
All in all, our climate and how it changes is mostly a mystery, currently we can only grasp at the broad generalities, the significance of the truly massive amount of minutia within this chaotic system is largely unknown to us.
Climatology is NOT settled as a subject, whether it can be within the limited bounds of science is debatable.
Good for you Pierre. I look at this site every day. I find the threads you are referring to are tedious and I flip to the next site. I appreciate well reasoned discussion from any viewpoint.
Good for you Pierre.
I concur entirely you have a great site visited daily
Sorry, i was a little busy (and still am, actually).
If my comments are not wanted here, please just tell me and i will leave. I do not want to bother anyone.
On the other hand, i do not know how to handle certain situations:
1. the article about the electric cars clearly contains mathematical errors. Why can we not agree of this and instead have to discuss cars doing 7000km per day??
https://notrickszone.com/2017/03/22/german-physicist-on-electric-cars-slaying-of-beautiful-hypothesis-by-an-ugly-fact/
2. How should i react, when people constantly bring up claims about CO2 not having any effect?